tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 31, 2011 10:00am-1:00pm EDT
-- going to a school that was at the 35th percentile in school performance. that is 15 points below the average. the average asian and white child was going to a school in the 65th percentile, so they are considerably better than average. it is great for kids going to better-than-average schools. the average hispanic or black kid is going to a school that is not performing. the odds are that we are not going to do a good job of training that kid. host: we thank you for being with us this morning. we go to the house of representatives. the morning our begins. speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., march 31, 2011.
i hereby appoint the honorable virginia foxx to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate . the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: madam speaker,
when the president ordered the attack on libya without congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright constitutional line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told "the boston globe," "the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." the reason the american founders reserved the question of war to the congress was that they wanted to assure that some moment us a decision could not -- momentus a decision could not be made by a single person. they saw their country go into debilitating wars for centuries and they didn't want that for the republic. the most fatal and consequential decision that a nation could make is go to war
and the founders wanted that made by all the people. only when congress has made that faithful decision does it fall to the president as commander in chief to command our armed forces in that war. the authors of the constitution were explicit on this point. in federal 69 they made a sharp distinction between the president's authority as commander in chief when they said would nothing amount to the direction of the military enabled forces and that of the british king who could actually declare a war. to contend that the president has the legal authority to commit an act of war without congressional approval requires ignoring every word the constitution's authors said on this subject. and they said quite a lot. there seems to be widespread misconception that under the war powers act the president may order any attack on any country he wants for 60 days
without congressional approval. that is completely false. the war powers act is clear and unambiguous. the president may only order our armed forces into hostilities under three very specific conditions. quoting directly from the act, one, a declaration of war, two, specific statutory authority or, three, a national emergency created by attack upon the united states, its territories or positions or its armed forces, unquote. only if one of these conditions is present account president then invoke the war powers act. none are present. none are alleged to have been present, and thus the president is in direct violation of that act. the united nations participation act requires specific congressional authorization before american forces are ordered into hostilities in united nations' actions. the north atlantic treaty clearly requires troops under
nato command to be deployed in accordance of their own congressional provisions. the war powers act forbids and infering from any treaty without specific congressional authorization. the only conclusion that we can make is that this was an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance. the president has implied he didn't have the time for congressional authorization to avert a humanitarian disaster in libya. well, he had plenty of time to get a resolution from the united nations, and i would remind him that just a day after the unprovoked bombing of pearl harbor roosevelt went to this chamber to receive congressional authorizations. some say the president can do whatever he wishes and that congress' authority is limited to cutting off fund.
-- funding. once a nation commits an act of war against another, from that moment on it is at war. it is inextricably embroiled and entangled to prosecute hostilities regardless what the congress then decides. finally, i've heard it say, well, we did the same thing in kosovo. if that's the case, then shame on the congress that tolerated it and shame on us if we act to stand unchallenged any longer. this matter strikes at the heart of our constitution. if this act is allowed to stand it will fundamentally change the entire character of the legislative and the executive functions on the most momentus decision that any nation can make and it will take us down a dark and bloody road that the american founders fought so hard to avoid. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.
the chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for five minutes. mr. welch: thank you, madam speaker. today i intend to use my five minutes to talk about the budget crisis that is before congress. we have to make a decision whether to continue the operations of government. that's the debate that is now under way with the continuing resolution, and we soon face the question of whether or not congress will extend the debt limit. now, let me start by acknowledging the obvious. america has to get its fiscal house in order. how we got here is debated but certain things are indisputable. we have two wars that have been paid for on the credit card. we had tax cuts that went to the high income americans that are on the credit card. we recently extended them at the cost of $700 billion to the deficit. we had irresponsible behavior on the part of wall street that required rescuing the financial system in america so that main
street could fight and survive another day. and then that led to a collapse in the economy and 10% unemployment that required governmental action in order to try to stabilize the economy. we have a long way to go in restoring the economy, but that has to be our first mission. the republican proposal on how to address this budget in these continuing resolutions will fail. the reason it will fail is because it fails to do what must obviously be done if we're going to have long-term fiscal stability and that is put everything on the table. the cuts that are proposed by the republican majority, unwise as they are, cannot do the job. the total focus of the republican effort in its budget plan to restore fiscal balance is to attack 12.5% of the
budget. the nondefense discretionary part of the budget. it happens to be programs that are benefiting americans in many cases. but leave it aside the debate of whether we should cut low-income heating assistance, the most vulnerable americans, or cut pell scholarships that allow aspiring young people to enter the middle class. we could cut the entire nondiscretionary -- nondefense -- discretionary, nondefense portion of the budget and we would continue to have an annual deficit of $1 trillion. so if we're going to get to budget balance and fiscal stability, which we can do, we have to put everything on the table, and that means tax expend it turs, the tax breaks that have been written into the tax code over the years by republicans and democrats alike actually cost taxpayers more than the entire appropriations budget. and many of us are asking the
question -- why is it that we are going to be continuing $55 billion in tax breaks to very profitable oil companies when oil is now selling at $106 a barrel? why are we doing that, allowing that but at the same time cutting low-income heating assistance and turning down the thermostat of cold vermonters and cold americans? why is it that hedge fund millionaires and billionaires literally pay a lower tax rate than their shofers, their drivers, their cooks, their secretaries? we got to put tax expenditures on the table. we have to put the defense budget on the table. how is it that america is spending over $700 billion a year? how is it that we are putting two wars on the credit card and not facing the fiscal responsibility to tell americans how we are going to pay for that? it's simply putting that burden
on generations of americans that will come after us. we have to reform health care. the first act of this congress was to repeal the health care bill. and debate as we might about what's the best way forward on health care, no one can dispute that our first goal has to be to bring down the cost of health care because whatever kind of system we have, if the cost is increasing in two and three and four times the rate of inflation it's not sustainable. and the health care bill that's been repealed by this congress, this house of representatives, that is going to add over $200 billion to the deficit over 10 years. so we have to put everything on the table. that's defense. that's tax expenditures. that's entitlements and how we can reform them so we can maintain benefits, not slash benefits. and democrats have to be willing to come to the table on the traditional line items in the appropriations bills where
we have to kick the tires and find ways to be responsible. if we do that by putting everything on the table we have a chance to be successful and be on a path to fiscal stability and solvency. refusing to put everything on the table guarantees failure. the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. mr. welch: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, for five minutes. mr. carter: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, congressman silvestre reyes and i would like to take this opportunity to honor general george w. casey jr., the 36th chief of staff of the united states army, for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to our nation. as co-chairs of the house army caucus, congressman reyes and i have had the privilege of
working with general casey as he led our army through a difficult period of transformation simultaneously rebalancing and modernizing the army while our nation was engaged in two wars. for over 40 distinguished years of service, general casey -- after 40 years of distinguished service, general casey will retire from active military duty in june of 2011. general casey is the epitomy of the consummate professional, exemplifying the special qualities exhibited by all transformational military leaders. a strong sense of duty, honor, courage and love of country. general casey continued the tradition of military service to his country that was started by his father, major general george w. casey sr., commander of the first calvary division, who died in a helicopter crash on july 7, 1970, in valm.
-- in vietnam. that same year, general casey was commissioned as second lieutenant in the infantry from georgetown university army reserve officers training corps. he went on to excel in a variety of command and staff assignments, including notable participation in operation joint endeavor in bosnia and operation iraq -- iraqi freedom in iraq and he commanded the first army division in 1999 to 2001, served as the director of strategic plans and policy j-5 of the joint staff in 2001 and director of the joint staff in 2003. following these joint staff assignments, general casey served as the 30th vice chief of staff of the army until june, 2004. from 2004 to 2007 general casey commanded the multinational force iraq, a coalition of 32 countries where he oversaw the
transition of three separate iraqi governments. he set the conditions for transition to iraqi-led security which in turn enabled the successful drawdown of u.s. forces from iraq. he was a powerful influence for democratic change in iraq, steadily improving the security and political environment in the country so that in 2005 iraq was able to conduct open and transparent national elections. . in april of 2007, general casey became chief of staff of the united states army. since assuming this position, general casey's leadership and commitment have contributed immeasurably to ensuring america's army remains the pre-eminent military force in the world. as the army's chief of staff, general casey has provided the strategic leadership and vision to complete the most
comprehensive transformation of the army since world war ii. building modular units and improving the capabilities of the soldiers to conduct full spectrum operations. general casey has proven himself a tremendous wartime leader, demonstrating unselfish devotion to our nation and to the soldiers he leads. responsible for the organization, training, readiness, mobilization, and employment of army forces, he has worked tirelessly to successfully restore balance to the force stretched and stressed by demands of wars in iraq and afghanistan. above all, general casey has never waivered from his personal commitment to support the soldiers and families who are the heart and soul of the united states army. he implemented the army family convenant and the army community convenant to expand and improve services and raise awareness about unique challenges military families face.
mr. speaker, during times of uncertainty and crisis, our nation has been fortunate to have exceptional men and women who step forward and calmly lead. such a man is general george w. casey jr. he has been exemplary in his selflessness service to our country through war, peace, and personal trial. it is with profound admiration and deep respect that we pay tribute to general george w. casey jr. for all that he has done for the united states army and this country. we thank general casey, his wife, his two sons for their dedication and sacrifice on behalf of our soldiers, our army, and our nation. as a personal aside, i was on a plane grounded in germany several years ago -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. carter: here comes the
commander in chief of the army, jogging up to the airfield just to say hello. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. carter: he's a great man. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, madam speaker. at the outset let me associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman who just spoke on general casey and thank general casey for his service to the country. madam speaker, in 1988 as a republican congress was struggling to compromise with the democratic president on a budget bill, a member of the house rose to speak to what he called, the perfectionist caucus. those members who stood against compromise under any circumstances. here's what he said, now, my fine friends, who are perfectionist, each in their own
world where they are petty dictators could write a perfect bill. it would be about 2,200 of their particular projects and particular interest and particular goodies taking care of their particular states. but this speaker said that's not the way life works. in a free society. in a free society, he said, where we are sharing power between the legislative and executive branches, compromise is precisely the outcome we should expect to get. those words were true then when newt gingrich, the speaker of the house, said them, and they are still true today. in the last election, americans voted for shared responsibility. without both parties' willingness to compromise, however, to take less than 100% of what they want, there will be no solution to our most pressing problems, including our debt. there will be no action on our
budget. and the government will be in danger of shutting down. which in the midst of a fragile economic recovery would be disastrous. so the question is this, madam speaker, who is willing to compromise? and who is standing in the way? democrats are willing to cut and compromise. we believe that smart, targeted cuts are part of the solution, and we have offered to meet republicans more than halfway. the republican leadership initially promised proposed $73 million in spending cuts. their conference rejected that proposal and demanded $100 billion in cuts. democrats have offered $51 billion and signaled a willingness to move toward the $70 billion figure suggested by the republican leadership. very near the republicans' original goal, provided, provided that we can agree on cuts that don't cripple our
economic recovery and undermine our shared values. cutting 200,000 children from head start is not, i believe, a value we ought to support. adversely affecting nine million young people's ability to go to college and make us a more competitive society is not one ever those values, either. substantially reducing our ability to participate in basic research which will grow our economy, create innovative ideas, and spur invention is not one of our values. in my view, the -- h.r. 1 that passed this house did not represent america's values. yes, we need to become fiscally disciplined, but we need to do it in a smart way that reflects our values. looking at those numbers, americans are surely thinking there is clear room to come to an agreement and keep the
world's largest enterprise, the united states government, from being funded on a sporadic, uncertainty creating two-week or three-week increement. so why can't we? -- increment. so why can't we? we'd the news, "new york times," march 28 said this, tea party supporters are coming to the capitol this week to rally republicans to not compromise with democrats on spending cuts. that's the perfectionist caucus wing. politico on march 27 said this, quote, harsh rhetoric friday night suggests g.o.p. leaders still fear a tea party rebellion. that's what newt gingrich was talking about with respect to the perfectionist caucus. the hill on march 29 said, quote, striking a deal with democrats would set off a wave of revolt among the most conservative members of the caucus.
that's the perfectionist caucus that newt gingrich was talking about that brought our government to a stand still and shut down our government in 1995 and 1996. we are in a dangerous place, i tell my friends, when compromise, which is essentially the job description of a legislator, in a free society, is enough to spark revolt. come let us reason together, lyndon johnson said, that's what we need to do. we face partisan opposition to any compromise on spending levels. some members' willingness to shut down the government unless they get their way on divisive social issues, even though the republican pledge to america promised to, and i quote, end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation to circumvent the will of the american people. in fact, mitch daniels, governor of indiana said they ought to be considered separately.
he is right. madam speaker, the perfectionist caucus, unfortunately, seems to be alive and well. it's just has a new name, just listen to its own words, one republican member said this, if we can't defund health care reform in the spending bill, then we have just got to dig in. in other words, shut down government if you can't repeal the health care bill. is that an item for substantial substantive debate? it is. but should we shut down the government while that debate is occurring? i say no. another said, quote, i think we have to have a fight. i think this is the moment. in other words, our way or no way. i don't think that's what the american people voted for. another said this, i don't see any room for compromise. democracies cannot work that way. as newt gingrich said, we are
elected from difficult constituencies by different people with different views, they expect us to come here, all 435 of us, and all 100 in the senate, and make reasonable compromises to move our government forward. yes, to reduce the deficit. we must do that, but let us do so in a way that honors our values and honors our democracy. for the rest of us, members of both parties, who understand that legislating means grow mize -- compromise, it's time to find common ground and prevent government shutdown. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, for five minutes. mr. barletta: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to share with my colleagues in the house what my names at home shared with me during the past constituent workweek. throughout the week, i heard
from small business owners, local officials, university leaders, teachers, students, rotarians, and a purple heart national guardsman about the issues facing pennsylvania's 11th congressional district. although the voices were different, the message was the same. we need to get our economy back on track. last week, i spoke at the rotary club in my hometown of hazelton, about the debt crisis crippling our nation. the rotarians were engaged, attentive, and concerned about the spending habits of washington. madam speaker, i let them know that we have a debt crisis in this country, not because washington taxes too little, but because washington spends too much. for far too long the federal government has overspent, overtaxed, and overborrowed. that stops now.
if we are serious about our economic prosperity, we must cut wasteful spending in favor of investments proven to work. last week i visited the shine 21st century afterschool program located in ten schools, shine is a data driven rural education model designed to provide academic enrichment to at-risk students. i commend jeanie miller, director of the program, and lehigh carbon community college, for partnering together to benefit preservice teachers and more importantly some of our region's most deserving students. like the d.c. opportunity scholarship program, the shine model stands out as a program that works. as a member of the house committee on education and work force, i will continue to examine how education at all
levels is preparing students for careers. i was privileged last week to welcome chairman klein and the house education and work force committee for a field hearing on the role of higher education in job growth and development. businesses from wilkes university, empire beauty school, and lackawanna junior college demonstrated first hand how northeast pennsylvania is taking strides to provide quality higher education. additionally, chairman klein and i met with and read to a kindergarten class at riverside elementary east. the reception we received from all of the students at the school was unbelievable. and i couldn't be more appreciative of the students, teachers, and school administrators for putting such a fantastic visit together. also last week, i welcome chairman mica, subcommittee chairman shuster, and the
transportation and infrastructure committee to scranton for a listening session on the future of our roads and infrastructure. the listening session helped me and other members of the committee gain a greater level of insight from local leaders with expertise and real world experience in transportation and infrastructure policy. during the listening session we spoke about job creation. heard some examples of burdensome regulation. listened to ideas about cost-effective maintenance plans, and were briefed on public-private partnerships as new ways to build and repair pennsylvania's roads and bridges. madam speaker, the challenges we face in our district are great, but they are not unique. my friends and neighbors in pennsylvania's 11th congressional district are hardworking people, and i will continue to bring their voices to washington throughout the 112th congress. finally, madam speaker, in
closing, i would like to note that we are all here today free to talk and debate because of the brave men and women serving in our armed forces. i was humbled and honored this week to attend the purple heart medal presentation in hazelton for pennsylvania army national guard sergeant first class john leonard. sergeant leonard was injured in an i.e.d. explosion in iraq in february. . it is men and women like sergeant leonard who make me stand proudly in this chamber today. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud. for five minutes. mr. michaud: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to speak in opposition to the korea free trade agreement. the korea f.t.a. is fundamentally flawed.
as everyone knows, it's the same nafta-style agreement that hasn't worked for 17 years. this agreement will further undermine u.s. manufacturing and ship more american jobs overseas. but there are things the american people don't know about this trade deal, things that the administration hopes that they will not find out. the administration will say that this agreement is key to increasing u.s. exports. but what they don't say is that it also increases korea's imports too which will expand our trade deficit by hundreds of millions of dollars each year and costs us 159,000 american jobs. it will also result in more underpriced goods from china shipped from korea and dumped in the united states.
the administration will say this trade deal is important for the u.s. national security. but what they don't say and talk about is the potential for it to benefit north korea through the industrialized complex and the administration will say that they fixed the provision and opened up korea's markets to all u.s. companies. what they don't mention is the fact that they fixed the provisions on paper, not in reality. and this is still a bad deal for the united states companies here in the u.s. they don't tell the american people that this free trade agreement does nothing to stop korea's currency manipulation. but the treasury department actually identify korea as a currency manipulator in their report this february. i've come to the floor today to make sure the american people are aware of how bad this trade
deal is for the united states and how good this f.t.a. is for china, kim jong il and south korea. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this flawed nafta-style trade deal. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, mrs. christensen, for five minutes. mrs. christensen: thank you, madam speaker. and i rise to speak out against the g.o.p. energy agenda and h.r. 910, the dirty air act. while consumers around the nation, including my district of the virgin islands, are struggling to make ends meet amidst the rising cost of energy, our colleagues across the aisle are shamelessly using scare tactics to cripple e.p.a.'s regulatory authority and gut the clean air act. h.r. 910, the energy tax
prevention act, or more appropriately, the dirty air act, will -- does nothing to protect the everyday american. in fact, the legislation outright denies the science that clearly demonstrates the greenhouse gases are injuryous to health. this is science that congress has paid for. the academy of sciences, a committee of many of the world's leading climate scientists and others make the indisputable health link that these gases are injurious to our health. so i want to speak out against that agenda. as want president has recently said, we have to work together to secure america's energy future. the only persons -- the only ones who benefit from this legislation will be those who already benefit, wall street oil speculators and big oil allies here in congress. there is nothing more -- this is nothing more than polluted politics. the american people deserve
better. let's save american jobs, invest in the green economy and ensure a clean, not a dirty future for the children of tomorrow. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu, for five minutes. ms. chu: yesterday house leadership pushed through h.r. 471. i voted no because it does nothing to create jobs, hurts public education and adds to the national deficit. we've been back to work in the house for 13 weeks, and for 13 straight weeks the republican majority has done nothing to create jobs. they haven't even put a single jobs bill on the house floor. in fact, their proposed spending bill actually costs america 700,000 jobs. now, speaker boehner has brought his own pet project bill to the house floor that
imposes his desire to privatize public education in the district of columbia. and he doesn't even represent the district. this bill would re-authorize the failed washington, d.c., private school voucher program and open it to new students fudge millions in new federal spending to private -- funneling millions in new federal spending to private schools. the voucher program has proven to be flawed and ineffective. the voucher program has not been successful in raising student academic achievement. it's had no impact on student engagement. the program has had no satisfaction of schools and whether students view their schools as safe and orderly. and voucher students were less likely to have access to important services such as programs for english language learners, programs for students with learning programs, counseling and tutoring. vouchers are an experiment that
has been tried and has failed. this anti-education bill comes at the time when the republican leadership is proposing drastic reductions in federal spending, including a house-passed bill slashing billions from core education programs. vouchers are not real education reform. they don't solve problems. they ignore them. rather than offering an empty promise for a few, we should be ensuring that every child has access to a great public school. and instead of taking money out of public schools for private schools, congress should be investing in strategies to improve school achievement. our focus should be on strategies proven to increase student achievements such as increasing parental improvement, strengthening teacher training and reducing class size. and our goal should be to prepare all students for the jobs of the future, not to allow few students and parents to choose a private school at taxpayer expense.
when public schools are struggling and teachers are being laid off, the last thing we need is to spend scarce taxpayer funds on private schools. and that's exactly what this legislation would do. speaker boehner's bill will increase the deficit by $300 million. $300 million that could go towards making sure america's public school students and public school teachers have the resources they need to succeed. speaker boehner's bill offers no offsets. it's an ideological effort to re-create a program that was ended years ago because it did not work. it's time for republicans to stop playing political games with our public education and america's economic future. and so i ask my colleagues across the aisle to join with democrats to reduce the deficit, protect our public schools, create jobs and strengthen the middle class. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back.
the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kapp i thank you very much, madam speaker -- ms. kaptur: i thank you very much, madam speaker. let me ask you, where are you? america's trade policy is operating as if we were still in the last century instead of the 21st. time and again this congress keeps failing to grasp reality and learn from past failures. instead, congress keeps doing more of the same failed approach. now, this administration has pledged to soon submit another so-called free trade agreement this time with korea. there are even some in congress who are demanding the president attach agreements to panama and colombia at the same time. all of these agreements fail to put america in a position to win economically by creating jobs here in our country. i want to remind my colleagues that these agreements are nothing more than expansions of
the same failed trade policies established by nafta. think about china. ever since those agreements were signed we've never had a single balanced trade account with those countries. these same approaches racked up another half trillion dollar trade deficit last year alone and all the lost jobs across our country that were outsourced as a result. and i can assure you that our trade deficits are not getting any better as a result. year after year the numbers tell the same story. more job loss resulting from unbalanced trade agreements. america needs reciprocity and balance and equal access to foreign markets, not surrender. haven't the working people of america paid a high enough price enough with the diminishment of their livelihoods, loss of home values, uprooting of their families, outsourcing of their jobs, collapsed school systems and constant worry about a more secure future? this is a fight about who is
taking away those economic opportunities drop by drop here at home and how we stop the hemorrhage. more free extremist trade agreements have given us the kind of world we inherited after nafta. they told us it would create millions of jobs. instead, we've seen the manufacturing sector decimated with over eight million lost jobs. on the numbers of jobs loss due to nafta with mexico and canada are in the millions. over a third of all manufacturing jobs in the united states had disappeared and been outsourced since its passage. our trade deficit with mexico last year was over $66 billion in the red. that means hundreds of thousands of pink slips in our country and for what? the mexican people live in greater misery since nafta's passage? not a recipe for continental stability.
when most favored nation status was rammed through here in the 1990's, proponents said it would create jobs across our country. since then america has amassed a $2 trillion cumulative trade deficit with china. trillions. hundreds of more thousands of pink slips in our country, including in the so-called green energy sector. more loss of production here as china demands businesses set up shop there to do business at all and then gives back tax holidays. and there is liberty there? no. there is communism. america and congress, where are you? next up, free trade extremists want us to pass more of the same. more of the same failed approach by adding kovia. america already racked up $1 billion trade deficit with korea. there is no real reciprocity. we will be lucky if we can sell 7,000 cars there under this
proposed agreement. that's not going to happen because it's not guaranteed. yet, korea already sales half a million cars here. how is this fair? how is it reciprocal? then there is a potential for another trade agreement with panama. panama is a major avoidance of -- panama is a site to create subsidiaries, only existing to not pay fair taxes here. why do we do this? and finally there is colombia. colombia, the most dangerous country in the world if you care about labor rights. since the 1990's over 2,000 trade unionists have been assassinated in colombia and in the vast majority of cases there's been no justice for the victims and their families. how can america reward this? when america's trade agreements has failed so vastly and cost us millions of jobs and we
haven't had balanced trade accounts in over quarter century and our standard of living is headed down we simply can't afford any more of these losing trade agreements and we ought to go back and renegotiate the ones that aren't working for us now. it's time for a new trade model for our country that benefits our workers and our communities for a change. america simply can't afford another nafta that's called korea. madam speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today. >> the house is in recess now. they will return at 12:00 noon eastern for legislative business. on their agenda today a long-term re-authorization of federal aviation administration programs. the bill will set spending levels through fiscal year 2014.
they will debate that bill, likely after a speech on the house floor by dennis kucinich on libya. we will have live house coverage presuming at 12:00 noon eastern here on c-span. take you next over to the capitol visstors center. john boehner is expected to be briefing reporters momentarily. a briefly on legislative activity. we expect to hear from john boehner shortly. this news from yesterday that there would be a vote tomorrow on a budget bill of sorts. two house republicans yesterday introduced legislation that attempts to enact the $61 billion in g.o.p. spending cuts for fiscal year 2011 if the senate fails to pass the sending bill by next wednesday. so we'll probably hear from john boehner about this. "the hill" rights the bill, h.r. 1255, which will come up friday in the house, says that, quote, if the house has not received a message from the senate before april 6, 2011, stating that it has passed a measure providing
for the appropriations for the departments and agencies of the government for the remainder of the fiscal year 2011, provisions of h.r. 1 as passed by the house on february 19 are hereby enacted into law. that will come up tomorrow on the house floor. we mentioned that debnies -- dennis kucinich will likely speak about libya. he mentioned this yesterday in a floor speech. he asked for a point of personal privilege. we are expecting to hear that sometime shortly after noon when the house gavels back in. the word from libya today from the new nato commander, he reports he's looking into reports of the air strikes in tripoli that may have killed at least 40 civilians. the lieutenant general is now heading the international operation. he noted the alleged incident happened before nato took command early thursday. so we will hear from dennis kucinich on libya shortly after
>> waiting to hear from house speaker john boehner, briefing shortly here on c-span. he is likely to talk about the budget negotiateations, where things stand, here almost aweek away before the end of the most recent, the sixth short-term spending bill. that is the deadline for that is next friday, april 8. so we will hear likely more about the potential for a government shutdown. the senate is in today. they continue work on their small business bill. it looks like there will be a number of amendment votes that will be later on today in the senate.
can you follow that of course on c-span2. and on c-span3, covering a couple of hearings with defense secretary gates and admiral michael mullen. they are talking about in particular about military action against gaddafi forces in libya. that's going on now on c-span3, the house armed services is under way, then the senate armed services committee this afternoon, at 2:15 eastern. both of those on c-span3.
an update from "the hill" russell berman joined us this morning on the status of negotiations on the 2007 -- 2011 budget. there are reports last night -- russell berman -- tha writes about it for "hill" before we talk about that, talk about the overall tea party influence. guest: there's a big influence, especially with the freshmen members in the house republican caucus. when the house republicans first came out with a budget number, the tea party freshman demanded even deeper cuts than that. that influence has carried over into these final negotiations where we are now. host: as far as the numbers go,
give us what both sides are presenting. guest: the good news is they seem to be making some progress in getting closer to the number that is the target now. that is $33 billion in cuts from current spending from 2011 for the rest of the year. that goes through the end of september. there are a lot of questions and sticking points that remain. chiefly, some of these policy provisions that you mentioned, defunding the health care law, preventing funding for regulations for the epa, and planned parenthood. all those things have yet to be decided. we do know that they have seemed to have settled on this $33 billion number, which is about halfway between what they had been talking about. it is interesting because it is roughly what the house
republican leadership proposed a couple of months ago. this was back before the freshmen made them go back in demand $61 billion in cuts. this would be a compromise, but it would bring them back to where they started at the beginning of this process. host: we heard from eric cantor that a line has been drawn in the sand. we heard from the house speaker that there may be a way we can work. who is right among leadership as far as how much republicans are willing to budge on this process? guest: the democrats have been the ones who have been talking more positively in the last day or so. joe biden came to the hill with the budget director and met with senate democrats. he acknowledged that they had general agreement on the top line #.
john boehner's office has said there is no deal. he said they do not agree on anything until they agree on everything. it will be interesting to see john boehner. he is scheduled to have a press conference at 10:45 a.m. this morning. it will be interesting to see what his tone is. at the beginning of the day yesterday, republicans were still in bluster mode. they were accusing the democrats of rooting for shutdown. at the end of the day, there was progress. it will be interesting to see what his tone is later this morning. host: there was a story yesterday looking at a friday vote planned in the house that would step up the game as far a a live now to speaker boehner, briefing reporters at the capitol. >> facing the american people every day, and that's rising gas
prices. i was interested yesterday to hear the president talk about this issue, but i think he left more questions than he did answers. why just days after vowing to buy more oil from brazil would the president urge a reduction on oil imports? why would he be so enthusiastic about brazil exploring its natural resources, while the administration does everything in its power to block energy production here at home? here in the house we've got a clear plan to develop job creating, homegrown energy and stop the policies that are driving up gas prices. it's called the american energy initiative. this week the natural resources committee put forward three strong proposals to expand american energy production. the energy and commerce committee passed a bill that would prevent the e.p.a. from imposing a backdoor energy tax.
and the majority leader said it would come up for a vote soon. this is important because when talking about energy we are not talking about just high gas prices, we are also talking about american jobs. by expanding american energy production, we can create more jobs, lower costs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. just as our work on energy is about jobs, so is our effort to end the spending binge in washington. excessive government spend something creating uncertainty for small businesses, reducing confidence and crowding out private investment that's needed to create jobs in our country. it's now been 40 days since the house passed h.r. 1, which keeps the government opened and cuts spending for the rest of this fiscal year. 40 days and senate democrats still have not passed a bill or come up with a credible plan to reduce spending. and i think it's important for
the american people to understand how we got here. last spring the democrat majority failed to pass a budget. in the house or the senate. they thought they could leave spending on auto pilot. we made it clear we would listen to the american people and cut spending, democrats started their negotiation was, no, we are not going to have any spending cuts at all. well, we passed a straightforward bill to cut spending and did it through an open process, and still senate democrats did nothing. then we passed a $10 billion worth of spending cuts over the last five weeks. still no plan from the senate, and no bill. only rhetoric portraying the american people as extreme. here's the bottom line, democrats are rooting for a government shutdown. we are rooting for the people who sent us here to cut spending so we can grow our economy.
our goal is to cut spending not shut down the government. there's been a lot of talk over the last 24 hours. there's no agreement on numbers, nothing will be agreed to until everything is agreed to. we can fill one half of one government program here, but we'll continue to fight for the largest spending cuts that we can get to keep the government opened and fund it through the balance of this fiscal year. >> what is the argument that you'll be making to some of our more junior members and your real conservative in favor of something that's off of h.r. 1? >> we are going to fight for h.r. 1. it's what the house passed. it's the only bill to fund the government through september 30 that's passed either house. we are going to continue to fight for everything that's in it. >> mr. speaker, a couple blocks away the tea partiers are performing, the big rally. they are saying no compromise. some of them are saying they are
unhappy with some of the action you have taken. see you moving too far off the number they want. some even suggest that there be a primary challenge to you next year. what do you say to the tea partiers? >> i'm glad that they are here and i'm glad they are engaged in the process. i said over a year ago that we should talk with the tea party folks, that we should listen to them, and we should walk amongst them. i don't feel differently about it today. any time americans want to engage in their government, and today i believe we have more americans engaged in their government than any time in our history, we should welcome that. >> democrats had a statement this morning saying the democrats and republicans have agreed on cuts worth $73 billion below the president's budget proposal. you're saying there's no agreement. >> there is no agreement on a set of numbers. nothing will be agreed to until everything's agreed to.
ill say it and continue to say it because that is the fact. >> the levels of spending cuts directly tied to what type would be improved? >> i'm enot going to get into the negotiations here. the house passed h.r. 1. we put our spending cuts on the table. we put our spending limitations on the table. the senate democrats have not. so they have no position. we are going to fight for what we passed in the house. . >> can you characterize how the negotiations are going in the house and the senate right now? >> we're talking. >> will there be a deal before april 8, before the bill expires? >> i hope so. the sooner we get this finished the sooner we get on with the big issues that facing our country.
i think it's time to move to a budget, try to get an agreement with the senate on a budget that will really transform the entitlement programs that are continuing to drive the budget deficit in the range that we are in today. >> have you talked to vice president biden since he made a statement last night? >> i have not talked to him since last night. i can't confirm that. >> do you think there's anything that -- especially the freshmen republicans, that they can abide anything less than h.r. 1? they're asking for more. >> i am well aware. i am well aware. a lot of people in washington who want us to do a lot of different things. we promised the american people that we would fight to cut spending and that is what we're doing. >> but only that's h.r. 1. your position is -- >> we are going to fight all of the spending cuts that we can get.
>> speaker boehner, h.r. 1 already failed in the senate. whatever you're negotiating, even though you say there's no number, that could be as much as 30 and less than h.r. 1. what do you say to those tea party activist who is are very unhappy? >> one half of one third of the government in washington. we can't impose our will on another body. we can't impose our will on the senate. all we can do is to fight for all of the spending cuts that we can get an agreement to and the spending limitations as well. >> [inaudible] form a coalition with democrats . >> not very interested. >> how much are you willing to raise the debt ceiling? [captioning performed by
national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> vice president biden will be meeting with budget directors and the tea party patriots rallying on capitol hill noon today. they hail from the likes of mike pence and michele bachmann. we'll cover that and have that live for you online at c-span.org. that's about noon eastern. former speaker newt gingrich on the hill today. austin scott, freshman out of georgia, tweets this morning. got a half an hour to go. finished a great freshman meeting. the house will come back in about an hour. general speeches to start off the afternoon and then a speech by dennis kucinich, a point of personal privilege dealing with libya. probably an hour long, worth of comments from dennis kucinich. following that the house will pick up debate on the f.a.a. re-authorization bill. we'll have the house live for you, of course, at noon herein here on c-span. for another look, a democratic look on the budget situation, we heard this morning from
"washington journal" from javier becerra from the ways and means committee. welcome, sir. the cato institute has a craft this morning talking about the budget negotiations going on. it highlights the deficit at $1.60 trillion. does that number jive with what you are seeing? if that is the case, what do we do to reduce it? guest: that graf is missing a really big expenditure, over $1 trillion that we spend in the tax bill. you do not have to put in all the spending in the tax code because it is not a direct expenditure out of an appropriated sum of money. it is an automatic eenditure. these are the tax breaks, the tax giveaways that we hear so much about.
it is a far larger number. what we are talking about is skewed only toward the programs that help seniors and kids and the housing programs,he clean air programs that we hav but it does not take into account the tax breaks the code to wealthier individuals and corporations. host: it takes a 10-year scope of the budget, particularly with looking at ways to reduce the deficit. it is 10 years a good time frame? guest: it is good to look at horizons beyond one year or a w years. you are hoping y can tweak these things so in the long term you are dealing with the budget so we can make it something back our kids can live with in the future. host: as far as current negotiations with cuts to the budget, how much are those playing into a total deficit
reduction picture? guest: the cuts that we are talking about, while significant to the children who are going to lose the head start program, the seniors losing subsidized lunches or a loss of the senior citizen center, it is big. when you are only targeting 15% of the budget and leaving out over $1 trillion in tax expenditures, you are not focusing on the real problems. the big fish are still getting away with a lot. at some point, i hope we can talk -- host: how would you define those? guest: if we are going to go to war, pay for it. that is what we have done with iraq and ahanistan. we have told america we can go to war and we will have our kids pay for the cost of having done
that. it cost $1 million for each soldier that we have out there. the president did say he is not going to need more money to pay for the cost of libya so far. to give y a quick example, those 112 tomahawk missiles that re fired, at 63 noted dollars. so he said i will find the money wiin the budget -- $63 million. close to $1 trillion and iraq already spend. to me, the cost of the wars should be paid for up front, otherwise it becomes a driver of the deficits. if you take a looat the chart, the biggest driver of the deficits have been the bush tax cuts. host: that is highlighted in blue? guest: yes.
these are essentially the same kind of tax expenditures. when you give up money that you otherwise would of collected -- some people got the tax cuts and others did not. those that did not have to pay more for those that got the tax cuts. that adds up to a lot of money. so, the result is that over the last decade and into the next decade, should those tax cut continue, are going to be paying heavily because the national debt as a whole is forced upon our kids. i voted against extending those tax cuts. others did, yes. host: aside from the tax cuts and the military, where are you as far as the ability to reduce the deficit and by how much? guest: again, it is going to be
more targeted. let's put it this way. should we be cutting money from veterans with direct budgeting? the house republicans did in their bill h.r. 1. maybe there is some wasteful spending for our veterans. just to eliminate the program altogether is not a targeted approach cutting spending. if there is a problem with a program, shave that program where it is being wasteful or where there is fraud. to cut, for example, services to veterans, $77 million that would scott, that does not make sense to me. -- $77 million that was cut, that does not make sense to me. i do not md putting everything on the table. once we have examined it, let's take some small cut you are going to cost yourself a
lot in the future. no one said to me that we have the headstart program not working. it gets them ready for school. that billion dollar cap will probably mean 200,000 kids in america will not participate in the program next year. at the same time, about 5500 schoolteachers -- 55,000 school teachers that provide head start education would have to be fired. host: social security, medicare, and medicaid --are they on t table, too? guest: republicans keep talking about touching social security. i wonder why you would want to do that when -- some private-
sector operation business that is successful with social security. the blue graph represents the amount of money that americans have contributed. we have contributed over $13 trillion since 1935 into the social security system. we have spent, the red bar, what we have spent as a nation in benefits to seniors that are retired, people that are survivors of american workers, and two americans that became disabled on the job. we have collected $13.10 trillion and paid out about $12 trillion. we have still in excess over $1 trillion in contributions. you can see at the top of the red bar is a very small bar.
that is the cost of administering social security, about less than 1%. it is extremely efficient. find an adviser in washington that will charge you less than 1%. he will not find him. the brown bar above the large blue bar is the interest that all of those contributions we made over the years, that is the interest we have gained and the 70 plus the social security has existed. and that money is earning interest through the treasury certificates that are held in that trust fund. why would anyonettack a system that is in surplus and continue to provide benefits? providing benefits to -- until the day you die and also becoming the most important aspect of retirement income for
most americans. it makes no sense to me to go after the most successful program in america. host: talking about deficit issues and other things, you can join in on the conversation with of the phone lines on the bottom of your screen. john, good morning. caller: congressmen, my comment -- it seems to me there is a problem right now. the government pretext tax revenues. i think it goes back to our trade policy. i do not think nasa has worked. i have talked to some many people and everyone says the same thing. we are sending some of the jobs overseas. i do not care what party you are in. i do not take donald tru serious as a presidential
candidate but he keeps talking about trade policy. you have to say what you really think. i think until we change our trade policies, the country is not going to bounce back. another comment i want to make, congressman ron paul who was on before , i think he is a decent guy, but no republican voted -- i'd want to hear your comments about trade policies. guest: thanks a lot. at one point, we will reach a state in our economy where our country will not have as its largest import foreign oil and our largest export, american jobs. we he to change that. i do believe we have to trade. that is the way things are when you are the largestconomy in the world. we have to trade. you cannot let other couries take advantage of you.
that is because we let these other countries essentially cheat us through labor costs because they undercut the wages of their workers, making it tough for american workers to compete. china used to pay its industry workers about 60 cents an hour. we pay our workers $25 to $30 an hour. you cannot compete. you have to make sure the playing field is as even as possible and is not suppressed in one country because there are treating their workers in different ways or they do not have an institution to try to help them keep a law in place to protect copyright and so forth. i agree with you in that sense, but i do believe we have to trade. again, i would make fair trade
deals. host: philadelphia, howie is on our republican line. guestcaller: i have a common for you. i would love for you to bring back guy back on the show. i want to thank the democratic party for voting against the provision of the patriot act. i am part of the 2004 -- i am fed up with this drug war. i hope president obama knows there will be 2 million victimless crimes under his watch. there will be 2 million. do you care to comment about economic slavery, sir? guest: if you are talking about the folks placed in jail because they have two or three sikes serving crimes for nonviolent crimes and it is tough to we
incorporate themselves back into society, i think that is one of the biggest mistakes that we make. by the time they get out of jail, they become very violent. when you are making cuts not in a targeted way, you will probably make it impossible for states to have the resources to keep those offenders from becoming more violent, repeat offenders in the future. i want to go back to where the previous caller asked about oil subsidies because that goes to the point about encouraging our biggest import to be oil or petroleum. by subsidizing theargest oil companies in the world to produce oil when they are making major profits seems to be making no sense i would prefer to make those tax incentives into the new energies, the cleaner burning energy, solar, wind, geothermal,
so we can try to encourage the private sector to come up with new inventions and innovations that will make those technologies and sources of energy for more a part of an our future. host: will we see a budget plan coming from the democrats in the house? guest: i think you will see a number of democrats talking about different plans. whether they come up with one single plan, i am not sure. and host: should there be a single plan? guest: you are trying to highlight the differences between the majority that is trying to lead in the minority. i think you will find the democrats will point out differences between what the republicans try to do, for example going after social security, medicare, and medicaid. you could make far more cuts if you do it in targeted ways that include everyone, whether it is
war spending or tax loopholes that if you just targeted our investments in education and seniors and our veterans. host: san francisco, you are next. amy on our independent line. caller: representative, i think you are a breath of fresh air i have been listening for a little while, and i have heard people say how people need to wake up and people need to listen, but can you give me a couple of examples? the president has been in office for, let's say, 2.5 years. i know the answer already. just for the sake of argument, did he make this budget $14 trillion in 2.5 years?
that is number one. number two is if we do not wake up as a society, our country -- we are cutting jobs left and right. they were supposed to be making jobs. they came into office and gave the top 2%, their bodies, a tax cut of $800 billion. everybody wants to talk about how the families. a family can sometimes come together. in this country, you have republicans fighting democrats, democrats fighting republicans. a family cannot work on a budget when tt is going on. they want to buy candy over here and candy over there and at the same time cut out of the unnecessary stuff like medicaid and medicare we have to give away as much as we can to people who do not even need it. host: we will leave if there.
guest: if you go back to the first chart, it gives you a sense of all the different programs that have led to these deficits. what you will see is -- president obama did not walk into the white house with a healthy economy before him. he inherited an economy that was vastly indebted and growing even worse. o he had the biggest recession we have seen since the great -- he had the biggest recession we have seen since the great depression. as you can see from this crt, we were going to continue forward in some pretty aggressive ways into deficit spending. the bottom of the chart would be a balanced budget, if you were at zero. as you go up, you see those things that are contributing to
the size of the deficit. over the long course of time, every year that we have deficits, that adds up to the national debt, $13 trillion or $14 trillion. in january 2009 when barack obama took the keys from george w. bush for the white house, he could not cut off all these things. iraq, afghanistan, the economic downturn, the bush tax cuts or employes already under law. he inherited not only a terrible economy, but autopilot on some of these things continue to drive up the deficit. the president tried to do what he could to get us out of a ditch. we hemorrhaged 780,000 american jobs.
january 2011, we created a quarter of a million jobs. in the last year, 1.5 million jobs created. we lost 8 million jobs during the bush administration. we are trying to recoup those jobs for the americans out of work today. you can see how tough it is. when you add to that the fact you have 200,000 americans each year who enter the workforce, a graduate from college or high hool, you can see the task in front of this government and this president to try to get the economy back to work. yes, day 87 or so into this new house majority, republican congress, we have yet to see one piece of legislation that will help stimulate the growth of employment in this country. at least one thing that president obama did in the
league was to begin the process of putting americans back to work, in the private sector especially. we need to see that in this congress. host: and into, to order, you are on with -- atlanta, georgia, you are on with the representative. caller: i have a quick question and a couple of comments. what year did mr. bush put in these cuts for the wealthy? guest: 2001 and then again in 2003. in two dozen one, when president bush took office, he was inheriting the largest surplus in our budget that we have ever experienced. he was being told by economists that he would be receiving -- essentially taken over the white house with a projected surplus
of $5.50 trilln. when he left office, it became a deficit of over trillion. it was a complete reversal. caller: that was 2001. those billions and billions of dollars i think that even though we have a spending problem, i think our main problem is revenue. if you look at all the money that republicans gave to their big business friends, all of that money to bring down the budget and everythin that they want to cut now, we could if used that money for these programs. i think it is real funny that they can take money from us to give to the millionaires and billionaires and then they want to cut us again. they want to c from the children, the students, the seniors.
they want to cut people like that. guest: gregory, that me agree with you parley and disagree with you. to reduce revenues without thinking about it is a neat -- is as bad as spending -- is as bad as cutting spending without thinking about it. you have to have smart cuts in spending and smart cuts in tax policy. too often, we do not do things the smart way in congress because a special interest in the way especially when it comes to those tax loopholes. most regular folks do not come up to washington to argueor tax loopholes. we have all heard the story about general electric paying no taxes and actually getting a tax refund. ge is simply using the tax laws
in the books to try to make sure it covers itself. when i and of finding my taxes -- when i end up finding my taxes, i am going to take a mortgage reduction interest. that allows me to reduce my taxes more than someone who does t own a home. our laws and codes are structured in ways that if the special interests get in there, -- we have to make cuts in spending, in our programs that are not working, and we have to also make sure that if we are going to have a tax policy, it does not favor some over others. host: going back to your chart, how much are those attributable to tarp spending and things along that nature? guest: the red chart or graph, part of the craft that is shown
in red, that is tarp, the bid for the banks. you can see how big it was at the beginning, $700 billion. it has grown small because the bas have had to pay back most of what they got. its effects are still significant in terms of the dollar amounts, but in the scheme of things, it is one of the smaller contributors. tarp was to bail out the banks. the stimulus was to generate jobs in america. the private sector was not investing in america anymore. that was about $800 billion. both tarp and stimulus, unpaid for. there was no money made were brought in to pay for those activities. the same was for the stimulus bill. the stimulus bill has goneown because it was a onetime
expenditure and it is generated 3.5 million jobs. now you have 2.5 million americans paying taxes because they now have a job. you can see the effects of a onetime expenditure on the stimulus now becoming far smaller in the future, as opposed to the bush tax cuts becoming bigger in time bigger over time because they were back loaded. the big cuts to the wealthy took effect in the later years, so the cuts at the beginning were small. they were crafted that way so that the cost would look small, not until you were inhe outer years, and now you can see how much it cost to keep the tax cuts in place for the very wealthy. host: so you'll see continued spending until 2019 according to this chart? guest: you will have the money spent up front, not recovered it
all. tohat degree that you have not recovered it all, it still adds up to a portion of what amounts to the deficit of the country. it has become a small -- a far smaller number. every year the tax cuts go to the very wealthy. every year we are spending more, spending money on the warn iraq and afghanistan. if the libya military action is a one-time expenditureit will show up as a quick blip in 2011 and go down to virtually nothing. if we stay in libya without paying for i it will continue to grow the cost. host: alabama, jeanette, a republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, congressman becerra. guest: good morning. caller: my husband and i are 100% service disabled from the gulf war, and we get disability. that is approximately $104,000 a year and we have a dendent
sun -- a dependent son. what has me boxed in a corner is when they talk about social security, i am not sure what the limits will be. i agree with cutting social security benefits and means testing and cutting medicare for the rich because they can afford private health insurance. but i am getting a little confused as to how this could possibly impact my health. guest: without having seen the plan presented yet, let me give you information based on previous republican plans that have been presented. when it comes to cutting benefits for social security that we know of, one plan that was presented would start the cuts, the means testing for social security benefits, at
about $24,000. remember that the average benefit that seniors receive and social security is about $1,400 a month. less than the $20,000. the means testing that i have seen in these proposals, republican proposals, would start cutting benefits for those who have an income of more than $24,000. it depends on if they will base it on social security, but most proposal i have seen basic not just on income was social security, but your total income, so your income with social security, other retirement benefits, and any other income that you receive from other investments. so if you have a total inflow of about $24,000, you woul probably see your benefits cut. that is a plan that has been out there. whether that is a plan that is put forward this year by republicans we have yet to see. we may know so in a week or so. i will tell you that i am not a
fan of making cuts to the benefits of social security or means testing social security for the masons -- for the reasons i mentioned earlier. social security has not done anything to lead to these deficits. not one single dime of the deficit that we face todayr the national debt that we face today is due to social security because social security has contributed -- you and i come all of us as american workers -- have contributed more into social security and we have had to take out. so much of the money we have put in that earns interest at a modest rate because it is in treasury certificates. if it accrued over $1 trillion in interest -- $2.50 trillion is sitting there, and that money is there, and i think it is a pity bank in the eyes of many people who want to use that -- a piggy bank in the eyes of many people
who want to use that. obviously some folks in government would rather use that money to try to reduce the deficit or pay for tax cuts to the wealthy and so forth, and i do not think we should tinker with social security that way. we have to deal with issues that come in about 25 years because of the demographics, because of the baby boom generation. the very last charthat i brought, some people said social security will go bankrupt. please, if anyone is listening or watching, i want to make something very clear. it cannot go bankrupt because by law and can never pay out more inenefits than it has available to it. by law. so let's say between you and i, what we pay as workers to social security, and within the trust fund, it does not add up -- at up enough to those retiring, seniors, workers in america --
what happens by law is social security can only pay out based on what it has. we can never by law pay out more simply because last year my parents got 100% of their benefits. that does not mean that next year i will get the same amount. what we want to do is resolve it so that in 50 years we are still paying out the same kind of benefits. how do you resolve that? you do not have to cut or means test social security or tell seniors today ty will not get what they paid for in the future. the chart shows you how you can deal with it without impacting a lot of americans who have worked very hard. how do you pay for it 75 years out? you can resolve the entire imbalance by simply telling the 1% of americans who got the bush tax cuts, "you will not get them." you take the 1%f americans, the 1% of wealthiest americans,
"you no longer get the bush tax cuts." you have more money than what you need to cover social security into the future, 75 years and beyond. so when people try to scare americans into believing you have got to cut your benefits, or for young people, social security will not be there for you. there is somebody who wants to put their hands in that piggy bank. host: massachusetts, independent line, bob. caller: you should add another bar to your social security in- and-out chart. how much money has gone back into the system that supports the local economy? i live on $800 a month, two years without a cost of living increase, which i think partly costs seniors -- caused seniors to stay away from the polls back in 2006.
why spend all my money. i do n invest it or save it or have it and a mattress. i end all at the local coffee shop, the local grocery, or the mechanic. i spend it on excise tax for my car in the local community. every cent goes to stimulate our economy, and the people that work for the gas station, for the mechanic, that work in the grocery store, the people that work in town hall, the people who fix the roads and get paid, the town workers -- all of that money, you need another chart. how much of that money has gone back into stimulating our economy? guest: run for office and i will vote for you. you are absolutely right. when we talk abo stimulating the economy, whene were in the depths of the bush recession, when we were talking about a stimulus bill, we were told by all the economists the quickest way to get america back to work
is to put money in the hands of people who will spend it on good stuff, not yachts and vacations but good stuff that creates jobs. the gentlemen -- the gentleman that just called in makes the point -- if you're a senior on a fixed income, you will have to pay your rent, fix that washing machine, buy your food. those are all activities that help america's economy. he is ablutely right, a social security benefit is not something most seniors then used to put into some crazy investment overseas. it is used to take care of basic needs, and that is at really does help the economy. so to cut what i mentioned before, a $1,400 average monthly benefit, even lower, is to not only make it more difficult for that senior to survive on a nthly basis, but we also make it tougher the economy to recover.
host: representative paul does not see the government shutting down. what do you think? guest: i hope not. the budget debate has gone from being about numbers and dollars to about social policy, cultural wars, abortion, voucher for school kids for private schools. it is leading the rea of dollars and cents, what is smart and what is not, to we want to make sure that we change the system forublic schools, we want to eliminate planned parenthood and family planning for america's families. we want to get rid of national public radio. if we cannot get those things, shut the government down. that does not make sense. i hope sanity prevails. democrats have already put a number of proposals on the table. we had initially back in december put $41 billion of cuts on the table.
republicans are talking about getting another additional $60 billion. i believe the white house has said we are about half way to that $60 billion. that is as deep as we should go. i might have been given time -- a difficult time supporting that. if we have to tell a veteran he has to lose out, it does not make sense. host: say you're not clear how you uld vote, depending howt shakes out? guest: i want to make sure those cuts are targeted. i want to make sure that if we make cuts they are targeted to the people who partied during the first quarter of the 21st century and did not pay for it. those are the people who should pay. for a decade they partied, did not clean up the mess.
clean up the mess, but you pay for the mess they created. do not tell a veteran or a school child that they have to pay for the party of a decade. host: next caller, from louisiana. caller: how are you all doing today? i retired from the army in 1984, i did two tours in vietnam, and i got a raise in my retirement every year until obama took office. the first thing i guess he did when he took office was to cut off our retirement. i do not understand why he is making us veterans suffer, and i do not understand where all that money is going with all our veterans not getting retirement anymore. can you explain that to me, please? guest: thank you for your service. i would be more than willing to help you. you have your own member of congress in louisiana, but you are welcome to call my office as well, 202-225-6035, my
washington, d.c., number. i think you have it upside down. in the last two and a half years, we have increased veterans' benefits. i know we have tried to increase the salaries of enlisted and currently serving members of the service, so i would love to hear about your particular case because i think something is going on i your part of the country, in your home area that is causing you perps to lose benefits because i know of nothing that has gone on here in congress over the last two years and under president obama that would cut your military retirement benefits. please feel free to call the number i gave you. host: san antonio attack -- san antonio, texas, republican line. lois? caller: i hava question for the congressman. the budget from last year that will be passed this year -- i was trying to find out, on that
budget, how much money are we borrowing? is it $1.60 trillion? the democrats always complain about wall street and this and that. what about fannie mae, freie mac, and all the people that would gain that money. every time they blame it on the banks get this, the banks get that, but never on themselves. that is my final question. guest: thank you, louis, for the call. if you want to get a sense of what we're dealing with in terms of the budget, the chart that shows the size and cause of the deficit -- there you can see the year of 2011, what are the principal conspirators to the size of the deficit we are spending more for vera, for schoolchildren, foreniors and the senior citizen centers and we have. on top of that, the tax cuts
that have drained the treasury of money, the cost of the war, the cost of tarp and so forth -- all those things add up to the point to the revenue that we collect turns out to be $1.5 trillion of all that we spend. the budget we are coming up with will decrease the size of the deficit but not very dramatically because when you are talking about even between $50 billion to $100 billion less, in terms of a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit, that does not cut it. host: one more call, and it has to be a quick one. hickory, north carolina. william, on our democrats line, if you can make it succeed, i appreciate it.
caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have a couple of points to make real fast. host: we are almost out of time. ask your question, please? caller: would you talk about the fact that general it -- general electric and exxon pay less in taxes? guest: of the fact that a rporation like exxon or general electric will pay less in taxes than the secretaries that work for those companies, it shows the imbalance in our tax sysm. that is when i tal about the tax loopholes, the tax year marks, tax giveaways, whatever you want to call them, that total up to over $1 trillion a year. what keeps some of those tax expenditures, -- we wil keep some of those tax expenditures because some of them we think are good. is it helping to create jobs in america? it is helping to export jobs to other places.
we should retract the tax code from providing those tax loopholes. where we can make some real dents in the deficit is we >> congressman becerra and his colleagues gavel back in in about 15 minutes at noon eastern. they'll begun with general short speeches and then comments from dennis kucinich, about an hour's worth, involving libya. and they'll begin debate on the f.a.a. re-authorization bill. the most contentious vote this afternoon will be on whether to limit union organizing by airline and railway employees. u.s. house live at noon here on c-span. meanwhile, negotiations continue on spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. we got an update this morning on "washington journal" from
russell berman of "the hill." th- russell berman -- tha writes about it for "hill" before we talk about that, talk about the overall tea party influence. guest: there's a big influence, especially with the freshmen members in the house republican caucus. when the house republicans first came out with a budget number, the tea party freshman demanded even deeper cuts than that. that influence has carried over into these final negotiations where we are now. host: as far as the numbers go, give us what both sides are presenting. guest: the good news is they
seem to be making some progress in getting closer to the number that is the target now. that is $33 billion in cuts from current spending from 2011 for the rest of the year. that goes through the end of september. there are a lot of questions and sticking points that remain. chiefly, some of these policy provisions that you mentioned, defunding the health care law, preventing funding for regulations for the epa, and planned parenthood. all those things have yet to be decided. we do know that they have seemed to have settled on this $33 billion number, which is about halfway between what they had been talking about. it is interesting because it is roughly what the house republican leadership proposed a couple of months ago. this was back before the freshmen made them go back in
demand $61 billion in cuts. this would be a compromise, but it would bring them back to where they started at the beginning of this process. host: we heard from eric cantor that a line has been drawn in the sand. we heard from the house speaker that there may be a way we can work. who is right among leadership as far as how much republicans are willing to budge on this process? guest: the democrats have been the ones who have been talking more positively in the last day or so. joe biden came to the hill with the budget director and met with senate democrats. he acknowledged that they had general agreement on the top line #. john boehner's office has said there is no deal. he said they do not agree on
anything until they agree on everything. it will be interesting to see john boehner. he is scheduled to have a press conference at 10:45 a.m. this morning. it will be interesting to see what his tone is. at the beginning of the day yesterday, republicans were still in bluster mode. they were accusing the democrats of rooting for shutdown. at the end of the day, there was progress. it will be interesting to see what his tone is later this morning. host: there was a story yesterday looking at a friday vote planned in the house that would step up the game as far as this process is concerned. guest: yes, and that is still the plan as of late yesterday. it's hard to describe this vote as anything but purely symbolic. the republicans would vote on a
bill that would say that if the senate did not pass a long-term spending budget that the bill the house republicans passed in february that cut $61 billion in spending would become the law of the land. that is a little confusing because, of course, that would also have to go through the senate and be signed by the president. it does not really changed the game that much. essentially, republicans would pass something similar to what they passed before. it would be a statement of party unity and it would try to put the onus back on the senate, but in terms of making real headway, it would not be much of anything. it would also be interesting to see if they go ahead with that plan. if negotiations really make progress in the next 24 hours or so, maybe you would see them not do that.
we will have to wait and see on that. host: on the house republican side, talking little bit about these numbers, not as far as some type of agreement. those who are tea party supporters -- how are they reacting? guest: we are going to see that today at this rally. the tone of that will be interesting. we would expect them to not be satisfied with the numbers like $33 billion. they were not especially satisfied with $61 billion in cuts. the question is how deep is that opposition. but tea party caucus in the house is not that large. there are not that many freshmen in that caucus.
it's a lot of activists and a few lawmakers. as you see a lot of republicans joining the chorus against this deal, they may have to go back to the table and you would see a threat of a shutdown increreasig once again. >> the u.s. house coming in at noon eastern. we expect to hear from dennis kucinich on libya at about 12:30 and the house today will take up the f.a.a. authorization bill. we'll have live coverage here on c-span. well, as the freshmen representatives this morning heard from former house speaker newt gingrich shortly after that current house speaker john boehner held a short briefing in the capitol. we are going to show you as much as we can.
it's just under 10 minutes and then, again, the house coming in at noon. >> let me start with an important issue that's facing the american people every day and that's rising gas prices. it was interesting yesterday hearing the president talk about this issue. i think he left me with more questions than he did answers. why just days after vowing to buy more oil from brazil would the president urge a reduction in oil imports? you know, why would he be so enthusiastic about brazil exploring its natural resources while the administration does everything in its power to block energy production here at home? here in the house we have a
plan to develop job-creating homegrown energy and stop the policies that are driving up gas prices and it's called the american energy initiative. this week the national resources committee put forward three strong proposals which bans american energy production. the energy and commerce committee passed a bill that would prevent the e.p.a. from imposing a back door energy tax. and the majority leader said it would come up for a vote soon. this is important because when we're talking about energy we're not talking about just high gas prices. we're also talking about american jobs. and by expanding american energy production we can create more jobs, lower cost and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. just as our work on energy is about jobs, so is our efforts to end the spending bin g herege here -- binge here in washington. it is reducing the confidence and crowding out private
investment that's needed to create jobs in our country. it's now been 40 days since the house passed h.r. 1 which keeps the government open and cuts spending for the rest of this fiscal year. 40 days and senate democrats still have not passed a bill or come up with a credible plan to reduce spending. and i think it's important for the american people to understand how we got here. last spring the democrat majority failed to pass a budget in the house or the senate. we made it clear that we would listen to the american people and cut spending, senate democrats started their negotiations with, no, we're not going to have any spending cuts at all. well, we passed a straightforward bill that cuts spending and did through an open process and still senate democrats did nothing. then we passed $10 billion worth of spending cuts over the last five weeks. still no plan from the senate
and no bill. only rhetoric for -- now, here's the bottom line. democrats are rooting for a government shutdown. we're listening to the people who sent us here to cut spending so that we can grow our economy. and our goal is to cut spending, not shut down the government. you've heard a lot of talk over the last 24 hours. there's no agreement on numbers. nothing will be agreed to until everything is agreed to. we can throw one half of one third of the government here but we're going to continue to fight for the largest spending cuts that we can get to keep the government open and funded through the balance of this fiscal year. >> what's the argument that you've been making to some of your junior members and conservatives in favor of something that moves off of h.r. 1? >> we're going to fight for
h.r. 1. if the house passes, it funds the government through september 30 that passes either house. we are going to continue to fight for everything that's in it. >> they're saying no compromise. many of them, at least some of them are saying they're unhappy with some of the actions you've taken, moving too far off from what they want. some suggests that it will be a primary challenge for you next year. who do you say to the tea partyiers. -- tea partiers? >> i say we talk to the tea party folks, we should listen to them and we should walk amongst them. i don't feel any differently about it today. anytime americans want to engage in their government and today i believe we have more americans engaged in our government than anytime in our history. we should welcome that. >> democrats and -- democrats
had a statement this morning saying that republicans and democrats need to work $73 billion below the president's budget. >> there is no agreement on a set of numbers. and nothing will be agreed to until everything's agreed to. i've said it and i'll continue to say it because that's the fact. >> mr. boehner, levels of spending cuts directly tied to what type of things will be improved? >> i will not get into the negotiations here. the house passed h.r. 1. we put our spending cuts on the table. we put our spending limitations on the table. the senate democrats have not, so they have no position. we're going to fight for what we passed in the house. >> mr. speaker, do you think that there be a a deal -- >> you're not going to get into negotiations but can you characterize how the negotiations are going between the house and senate right now? >> we're talking.
>> mr. speaker, do you think there will be a deal before april 8 before the government's economy expires? >> i hope so. the sooner we get this finished the sooner we get on with the really big issues that affect our country. we have big challenges facing our country. and i think it's time to move to a budget to try to get an agreement with the senate on a budget that will really transform the entitlement programs that are continuing to drive the budget deficit into the range that we're in today. >> and have you talked to vice president biden since he made a statement last night? >> i have not talked to him since last night. >> mr. speaker, do you think that there's anything that the freshmen republicans could abide that is anything less than h.r. 1? and they're asking for more. they're asking for the -- we have the tea party. >> i'm well aware.
i'm well aware. there are a lot of people in washington that want us to do a lot of different things. we promise the american people that we would fight to cut spending and that is what we're doing. >> but only that h.r. 1. it seems like your position can't -- >> we are going to fight all of the spending cuts that we can get. >> mr. speaker -- speaker boehner, h.r. 1 already failed in the senate. so whatever you're negotiating, even though you say there is no number, it could be $30 billion less than h.r. 1, what do you say to those tea party activists that are very unhappy? >> you can -- we can't impose our will on another body. we can't impose our will on the senate. all we can do is to fight for all of the spending cuts that we can get an agreement to and the spending limitations as well. >> how will you leave your conservatives behind and form a
coalition with chairman pratt? >> not very interested. >> how much are you willing to raise the debt ceiling? >> speaker boehner from this morning. u.s. house about to gavel in for general speeches to start things off. we'll hear from dennis kucinich about libya. an hour-long a point of personal privilege and then debate on the f.a.a. re-authorization bill. "politico" writing that the obama administration is indicating that the president will veto that bill moving through the house if it includes provisions hampering aviation and railroad workers' ability to unionize. now live to the house floor on c-span.
of the world and those who dwell therein, we humbly approach your soul of grace with hearts filled with gratitude and spirit given to praise. how thankful we are to you for your unconditional love and how you have demonstrated your love with compassion, care and concern for all mankind. thank you for our president, senators, congresspersons and all other officials of our nation. be pleased, dear lord, to favor them with good health and strength, wisdom and spiritual resources to lead our country in a manner that is pleasing and acceptable in your sight. we pray that you will keep our great nation under your holy protection. may we govern with the spirit of the prophet michael who said, to do justly, love mercy and walk
humbly with you. in the name of jesus, the christ, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from colorado,. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15-one-minute requests on each side. without objection, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, it's an honor today, one of the greatest honors i've this in congress, to welcome pastor charles
jackson sr.. pastor jackson is a long-time family friend of our whole family. he actually began preaching at age 9. he was actually licensed at age 10. he was ordained at age 12. he became pastor of the chump at age 18. and now he is the longest serving pastor in the midlands of south carolina. 40 years of service. he has built a church from merely 60 members to 7,819 members. and we're so grateful for his success. in fact, two of his members are active members and serve in the district office of the second district of south carolina, earl brown, a former deacon of the church is our deputy director, and special assistant is beverly collie. we truly identify. there are now 65 ministries in this church, the sanctuary, 2,300 seating, he provides a
credit union, a bank wet facility, a foundation. it really serves the people of the midlands of south carolina and i know that i'm grateful to be here with my colleague, congressman jim clyburn, who also knows of what extraordinary person pastor jackson is. he is also a successful family man, his wife, robin, is here, as first lady of the church she is a beloved person in our community. additionally their son charles is the pastor of the new laurel street baptist church and we're very grateful his daughter candice is a graduate of duke law school and is a member of one of the most prominent law firms of south carolina, nelson, mullens, riley and scar borrow. also, four grandever jnch -- four grandchildren with kay leb and carter and so it's my honor to be here with pastor charles jackson and thank him for giving
our prayer today. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? without objection. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. clyburn: i would like to take a moment to associate myself with the remarks we just heard from congressman joe wilson. and to welcome my long-time friend, reverend charles jackson , who when we used to meet i used to call him something different. i want to thank him so much for giving us the prayer today and let him know how much i appreciate his long friendship and that of his family as well. i look forward to seeing you in a couple days. thank you, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 further wup requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?
mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, foreign invaders are threatening the people who feed america. recently i was invited to the arizona border by congresswoman gabrielle giffords' office. i met with border ranchers who live in fear each day because they don't know who or what is lurking on their land. they communicate with each other over radios in this remote areas, many time cell phones do not work. so today i'm filing legislation that is the idea of mrs. giffords. this bill is in memory of robert crninz. he was mrded by an illegal on his property a year ago. he is a former rancher whose family still lived in arizona. news reports indicate he was in a cell phone dead zone when he was murdered and this bill will provide people in remote areas on the dangerous border area
with cell phone service to call for help. if the federal government is going to refuse to protect the citizens, at least it can do is allow people the resources to protect themselves. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. president obama outlined four areas to curb foreign oil dependence. production, natural gas vehicles, car fuel efficiency and better use of biofuels. mr. blumenauer: he could have added a fifth element. his administration's own sustainable communities partnership between e.p.a., the department of transportation and h.u.d. that has helped communities larn and small provide families transportation and housing choices which conserve oil without sacrificing economic growth. this combination of smart transportation alternatives, land use and design keeps communities resilient and
reduces the impact of high gas prices. with only 2% of the world's oil reserves, america will never drill its way to energy independence as long as we continue to consume 20% of the world's oil. the only real way to gain independence from oil price shocks is to give families independence from oil. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. . >> there are many heroes from colorado who have fought and continue to fight the global war on terror. today i pay tribute to one hero, lance corporal mice of bennett, colorado, enlisted in the marine corps following his graduation
from high school. mr. coffman: he was deployed on january, 2011, to afghanistan in support of operation enduring freedom. and served with his brothers in second battalion, eighth marines at the tip of the spear in helmund province. on march 17, his unit came under fire and he gave his life fighting the taliban. comes from a family of long tradition of military service to our nation. he was proud to be an american and from an early age he wanted to serve his country as a marine. he chose to become a marine because in his words they are the best. he had the reputation of a standup guy who loved his family and his country. like a good marine, he was also known to be the man up front, the man leading the way. lance corporal mice is a shining example of the united states marine corps' service and
sacrifice as a marine corps combat veteran, my deepest sympathies go to his family, his fellow marines, and to all who knew him. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: article 1, section 7.2 of the constitution says both houses, the house and senate, must pass a bill identical and the president must sign it before it becomes a law. now, wait, the republicans have a bill we are going to take it up tomorrow, h.r. 1255 that deems that a bill that overwhelm has passed the house of representatives, h.r. 1, has become law. now, what happened to the fact that we were going to have to prove the constitutionality of every bill that came before the house? this blatantly violates the constitution. now, i was totally outraged, outraged when i saw this, but then i realized, guess what? what's tomorrow? april fool's day.
hey guys, you got me. congratulations. happy april fool's day. what are we really going to be doing tomorrow? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from west virginia rise? mrs. capito: to address the house for one minute, and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate the george washington patriots for winning the west virginia class triple-a boys basketball championship. the third seeded patriots defeated top seeded wheeling park, 55-54 to take home the state title. this is a special win for the coach as he was part of the team that gave the school their first basketball championship 40 years ago. in a close, intense game the two teams battled to the end but in the final seconds george washington was leading 55-52 when wheeling park looked what would be a three-pointer, however a review showed it was a two pointer and george washington won, quite a finish. having two boys who grew up playing basketball in west
virginia for coach green, i have sown both the nayses of elation and anguish. this shows the heart and dedication of the young men and their coaches as they put in all season to get to this game. i want to congratulate both teams for tremendous seasons and for giving us such a memorable game. congrats to g. dub. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. sires: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized
for one minute. mr. sires: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate coach bob hurley. some may know him as the third high school career basketball coach to be inducted into the basketball hall of fame. some may know that despite limited resources, and no gym facilities, he recently led the basketball team to their 24th state championship and their fourth national title. and has led the team to over 1,000 wins. however the more important
number are those that show the impact he has had on his players. in his nearly 40-year career only two of his players have not attended college. and of those graduates, over 200 young men have continued to play basketball. in 150 have received college scholarships. the coach sees the potential in his players and even when they don't see it them selves. he is an inspiration to young men and true role model and father figure to many. i congratulate coach hurley, his players, st. anthony's high school on their recent national title.
wish them well and success in the few you are -- future. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mckinley: mr. speaker, this week the house will consider the fate of crucial funding for commercial flights to and from airports in morton --
morgantown, clarksburg, and parkersburg in my home state of west virginia. west virginia is a rural state without major population centers, and its employers need and deserve an adequate transportation infrastructure, access to air transportation is essential to achieving economic growth. the i-79 corridor, for instance, has a large presence of federal defense and high-tech workers. in part because of daily flights to and from washington, d.c. north central west virginia airport in bridgeport accounted for 2,372 jobs and $395 million in economic impact in 2008. cutting spending is necessary to bring down the deficit and create certainty for job creators, but our local airports are part of what provides certainty for area businesses. let's make this airport funding program more efficient.
keeping what works. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize an amazing woman. a woman from the city of anaheim in my district, mrs. maria t. solis martinez, in honor of woman's history month. ms. solis martinez is a retired united states air force master sergeant who served during the vietnam era from 1960 to 1967. in 1974 she joined the california air national guard and continued her commitment to serving our country in the 261st and 222nd combat communications squadron. i'm truly proud to have such an
extraordinary woman in my hometown and she is a mentor and a friend and she's always working for the community. for over 10 years she has been an active member, sponsor of the latino advocates for education incorporated, an organization that brings awareness and recognition to the contributions of latino military veterans in all the wars fought by the united states. she continues to vote end -- devote endless hours in volunteering in north orange county ywca youth employment service and so many other organizations. mentoring young girls to become talented, distinguished women. as we honor women's history month and women in the military history week, i proudly recognize mrs. maria solis martinez for her incredible leadership and for being such a great role model. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.
for what purpose does the gentleman from delaware rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to object once again to the majority's misplaced priorities during these difficult times for american families. as a result of the financial crisis in 2008, more than seven million americans lost their jobs and more than nine million americans have faced foreclosure. in my small state of delaware, 6,000 people filed for foreclosure last year which is three times the norm. as lieutenant governor, i chaired a foreclosure prevention task force in delaware, and we learned that the best way to help homeowners was through a combination of private and public sector efforts. it's just unbelievable to me that this house voted to end foreclosure prevention programs which for thousands of families are the last chance to keep their homes.
let's remember that we are still recovering from the worst financial crisis since the great depression and the housing market is still floundering. allowing more families to lose their homes just makes things worse. so this debate is not just about helping individual families as important as that is, it's also about strengthening the economic recovery now under way. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to urge my colleagues to continue to focus on creating jobs and the economic recovery. i am very concerned with the reckless g.o.p. spending proposal that will slash jobs all across the united states of america. ms. castor: and i want to give two examples that were highlighted by my local urban league that visited washington yesterday from st. petersburg,
florida. they said the republican spending proposal will actually cut 9,100 teachers and teacher aide and education jobs if it goes into effect. i think that's wrong. we shouldn't be slashing jobs. we should be fighting to create jobs. they also highlighted the fact that h.r. 1 will slash the pell grant from .4 million college students across america. their proposed cut is $845 per student. that is wrong. we must remain invested in education, our teachers, our students, we've got to fight for each and every job in the face of the g.o.p.'s reckless spending proposal and misguided priorities. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor a remarkable woman. this weekend those who love and admire elizabeth carney will
gather together to celebrate her life. she passed away last saturday at a very vibrant 96. she was a trail blazer in countless ways. she graduated with a degree in medical technology from the university of minnesota in 1936. after her husband completed his residency in rochester, minnesota, they moved where they raised five children and became pillars of our community. the mancato free press reported she was a devoted mother who cherished family above all else, was a friend, mentor, and role model. her daughter and their sons are still important force in our community. she founded the women's leadership development program at the ywca, served on the rehabilitation center board, started the cultural exchange program at the university of minnesota mancato and served on so many countless organizations. the free press summed it, she was the personification of grace, kindness, and again rossity and a day did not pass without her touching someone's
life in a special way. she will be deeply missed by not only her family but so many in the community who admired her commitment to causes greater than herself. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise to commend the efforts of our former colleague, tony hall, reverend david beckman, reverend jim wallace, and more than 6,000 people across the country as they take part in a hunger fast to protest the draconian cuts to programs that affect the hungry and the most vulnerable in america and around the world. the republican plan, h.r. 1, would decimate what is now being called the circle of protection. the programs that protect the hungry and the most vulnerable here at home and around the world. i urge my colleagues to show that america doesn't turn its back on people in need. to have a heart and to resist cutting these lifesaving programs. please go to www.hungerfast.org
for more information. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record this fact sheet from bread for the world on the circle of protection. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, private sector employment went up by 200,000 people this month. but unemployment remains stubbornly high. a principal reason for this is the job cuts in the public sector. this past month public sector jobs were lost at an annual rate of a quarter million people. these people also have mortgages to pay, college kids to educate, car payments to make, and the like. they matter to our economy. over the last two years, more than 200,000 teachers have been laid off. while student enrollment has increased by 750,000.
we are told that h.r. 1 would eliminate another 9,000 teacher jobs. in detroit, classroom size has gone up to 60 students per classroom in middle school. the toughest years to maintain discipline and enhance knowledge. now we are told we may have a compromise on h.r. 1 that will cut only 300,000 jobs, not 700,000 public sector jobs. it's inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worst from the republican majority in this house to suggest they care about jobs but at the same time they are eliminating hundreds of thousands of of them. thank you, mr. speaker. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the cloud hanging over this chamber is the threat of a government shutdown. we are engaged in what is literally a life or death debate about our priorities as a country and the republican majority's reckless spending plan doesn't just betray our
national values, it highlights their values. mr. yarmuth: they're demanding cuts to financial aid for students and assistance to homeless veterans. they want to slash heating assistance for low income seniors or they'll shut the government down. they're even demanding we sacrifice the needs of police officers, firefighters, nurses, seniors and even pregnant women. and on top of all that they're fighting to protect billions in tax breaks for wall street and oil companies or they'll shut the government down. in other words, they demand sacrifices from everyone except millionaires, billionaires and their corporate ben factors. that's why i think we ought to call the reckless g.o.p. spending plan good old payback. mr. speaker, we cannot let politics and corporate profits trump smart and compassionate policy in the well-being of our nation. i urge my colleagues to reject these demands and fight to create a government and an economy that works for all americans, not just the wealthy few. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.
for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? hire i had i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hirono: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we've got to get a hold of reality. we've got to ask, what is it that we're doing when we're not able to come to a c.r.? ms. hanabusa: look at what we're telling the people and worse than anything else, we are dereceiving the main purpose for which we're here. we're here to build public confidence. we're here to make people feel good that we know what we're doing and that there is a bright future for all of them. instead, instead the majority is proposing yet another series of budget cuts. and cuts, yes, we must get our budget under control. but we must do it smartly. and somehow that message isn't getting through. two economists said that the cuts are short-sighted, budget cuts to human capital, our
infrastructure, the next generation of scientific and technological advances does nothing for us. as a matter of fact, it's going to set us back. mr. speaker, please, what we need to do, what the majority needs to do is to say, yes, cuts, but smart cuts. and let's work together toward smart cuts. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> for permission to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. and as one of the previous members of the democratic side talked about, tomorrow is april fools. april first. april fools. the republicans would like to have everybody believe that a bill that just passed the house but has never passed the senate, never been signed by the president, is going to become law. we all know from our civics class that just isn't what the constitution says. but they'd like us to believe
that. now that's a bad enough joke on america. but the real bad joke is what's in that bill. and what it does is, we're finally starting to get this country on its feet economically, we're starting to make things in america again, manufacturing is on the rise, but they'd like to see that cut. they want to cut our research into clean energy, which in colorado, for every job that we have in research there are four private sector jobs. they want to cut that. that's the bad joke that's coming up on april fools. the cuts that they ask really take -- pulled the rug right out from under the feet of america and we've got to stop it. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand today to ask my colleagues to help american families and children. and i join my good friend,
congressman gutierrez, on acknowledging the many children, the talented children, that are in our schools that deserve the best education along with all of our children who happen to have been in this country most of their life but they're undocumented. they're called the dream act children. the children who are our future engineers and doctors, teachers and train workers, bus workers, people who help build america. it is time now to support comprehensive immigration reform, it's time now to distinguish between the bad guys who awful us want to see deported versus these young children who are athletes, who are men and women in the united states military, who are seeking to be part of the pillars of this community. i want to join in standing alongside of these american families and children not to break up families who are raising wonderful americans but yet are not status because of the way their families came to seek an opportunity.
comprehensive immigration reform is the answer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. pursuant to clause -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my republican colleagues made a pledge to america to develop a plan to create jobs and economic uncertainty. and make america more competitive. yet today republicans have not produced a single job-creating measure. in fact, they have done just the opposite. first time jobless claims decreased by 5,000 votes -- by 5,000 last week and a total number of people receiving benefits fell to its lowest level in three years and february jobs reports showed gains of 192,000 jobs, a drop in
the unemployment rate to 8.9%. still ignoring the fact that the experts have said the need of their constituents and basic logic, republicans continue to embrace a plan that would hamper our economic progress, depress our growth and development, this misguiding, job-killing spending plan is estimated to eliminate 800,000 jobs, reduce economic growth by 2%. this is irresponsible, unacceptable and urge my republican colleagues to abandon this job-killing spending campaign and adopt a reasonable -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you very much, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 5-a of 4-a of rule 10 and the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair announces that the speaker named the following members of the house to be available to serve on investigative subcommittees of the committee on ethics for the 112th
congress. the clerk: mr. bishop of utah. mrs. blackburn of tennessee. mr. crenshaw of florida. mr. latham of iowa. mr. simpson of idaho. mr. walden of oregon. mr. olson of texas, mr. latta of ohio. mr. griffin of arkansas. mr. grimm of new york. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, seek recognition? mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one hour. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman request a point of personal privilege? mr. kucinich: i request a point of personal privilege to address the house for one hour. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has been made aware of a valid basis for the gentleman's point of personal privilege. the gentleman from ohio is now recognized for one hour. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, thank you very much.
the critical issue before this nation today is not libyan democracy, it is american democracy. in the next hour i will describe the dangers facing our own democracy. the principles of democracy across the globe are embodied in the u.n. charter, conceived to end the scourge of war for all time. the hope that nations could turn their swords reflects the timeless impulse of america for enduring peace and with it an enhanced opportunity to pursue happiness. we are not naive about the existence of forces in the world which work against peace and against human security.
but it is our fervent wish that we shall never become like those whom we condemn as lawless and without scruples. for it is our duty as members of a democratic society to provide leadership by example, to not only articulate the highest standards but to walk down the path to peace and justice with those standards as our constant companions. our moral leadership in the world depends chiefly upon the might and light of truth and not shock and awe and a ghastly glow of our 2,000-pound bombs.
mr. speaker, our dear nation stands at a crossroads. the direction we take will determine not what kind of nation we are but what kind of nation will we become. will we become a nation which plots in secret to wage war? will we become a nation which observes our constitution only in matters of convenience? will we become a nation which destroys the unity of the world community? which has been pain stakingly -- painstakingly pieced together from the wounds of world war ii.
a war which itself followed a war to end all wars. now once again we stand poised at a precipice, forced to the edge by an administration which has thrown caution to the winds and our constitution to the ground. it is abundantly clear from a careful reading of our declaration of independence that our nation was born from nothing less than the rebellion of the human spirit against the arrogance of power. more than 200 years ago it was the awareness of the unchecked
arrogance of george iii that led our founders to carefully and deliberately balance our constitution, articulating the rights of congress in article 1 as the primary check by our citizens against the dangers they foresaw for our republic. our constitution was derived from the human and political experience of our founders who were aware of what happens when one person took it upon himself to assume rights and privileges which placed him above everyone else. but where, asked tom payne, in his famous tract, "common sense," where's the king of america?
i'll tell you, friend, he iranians above and does not make -- he reigns above and does not make havoc like the royal of britain. so long as we approve of monarchy that in america the law is king. for as an absolute government, the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king. and there ought to be no other. said thomas payne. in "common sense." the power to declare war is firmly and explicitly vested in the congress of the united states under article 1, section 8 of the constitution. that is the law, the law is king.
let us make no mistake about it. dropping 2,000-pound bombs and unleashing the massive fire power of our air force on the capital of a sovereign state is in fact an act of war and no amount of legal acrobatics can make it otherwise. . it is the arrogance of power which former senator from arkansas, jay william fulbright, saw shrouded in the deceit which carried us into the abyss of another war in vietnam. my generation was determined that we would never see another vietnam. it was the awareness of the unchecked power and arrogance of
the executive which led congress to pass the war powers act. congress through the war powers act provided the executive with an exception to unilaterally respond only when the nation was in actual or imminent danger to repel sudden attacks. mr. speaker, today we are in a constitutional crisis because we have an administration that has assumed for itself powers to wage war which are neither expressly defined nor implicit in the constitution nor permitted under the war powers act. this is a challenge not just to the administration but to this congress itself.
a president has no right to rest that fundamental pow -- wrest that fundamental power from the congress and we have no right to cede it. we, members of congress, can no more absolve a president of his responsibility to obey this profound constitutional mandate than we can absolve ourselves of our failure to rise to the instant challenge to our constitution that is before us today. we violate our sacred trust to the citizens of the united states and our oath to uphold the constitution if we surrender this great responsibility, and
through our inaction acquiesce in another terrible war. we must courageously defend the oath we took to defend the constitution of the united states, or we forfeit our right to participate in representative government. how can we pretend to hold other off rens to fundamental legal principles -- off rens to fundamental legal principles if we do not old our own president to fundamental legal principles here at home. we are staring not only into the maelstrom of war in libya, the code of behavior we are
establishing sets a precedent for the potential of ever more violent conflicts in syria, iran , and the specter of the horrifying chaos of generalized war throughout the middle east. our continued occupation of iraq and afghanistan makes us more vulnerable not less vulnerable. to being engulfed in this generalized war. in two years we have moved from president bush's doctrine of preventive war to president obama's assertion of the right to go to war without even a pretext of a threat to the
nation. this administration is now asserting the right to go to war because a nation may threaten, threaten force against those who have internally taken up arms against it. keep in mind our bombs began dropping even before the united nations international commission of inquiry could verify allegations of murder of noncombatant civilians by the gaddafi regime. the administration deliberately avoided coming to congress and furthermore rejects the principle that congress has any role in this matter. yesterday we learned that the
administration would forge ahead with military action even if congress passed a resolution constraining the mission. this is a clear and arrogant violation of our constitution. even a war launched ostensibly for humanitarian reasons is still a war. and only congress can declare war. mr. speaker, we saw in the president's address to the nation on march 28 how mismatched elements are being hastily stitched together into a
new war doctrine. let's review them. number one, an executive privilege to wage war. number two, war based on verbal threatses. number three, humanitarian war. number four, preemptive war. number five, unilateral war. number six, war for regime change. number seven, war against a nation whose government this administration determines to be illegitimate. number eight, war authorized through the u.n. security council. number nine, war authorized through nato and the arab
league. and finally, war authorized by a rebel group against its dess penny-wise and pound-foolished government. -- against its despised government. but not a word about coming to the representatives of the people in this, the united states congress, to make this decision. mr. speaker, at this very moment thousands of sailors and marines are headed to a position off the coast of libya. the sons and daughters of our constituents willingly put their lives on the line for this country.
we owe it to them to challenge a misguided and illegal doctrine which could put their lives in great danger. for we have an obligation to protect our men and women in uniform as they pledge to defend our nation. this administration's new war doctrine will not lead to peace but to more war, and it will stretch even thinner our military. in 2007 the center for american progress released a report on the effects of war in iraq and afghanistan and the multiple deployments of our armed forces. the report cited a lack of military readiness.
it cited high levels of posttraumatic stress and suicide . the report was released just before president bush's surge in iraq. just one year after the surge in afghanistan, and after eight years of war in iraq, the president commits an all volunteer army to another war of choice. if the criteria for military intervention in another country is government sponsored violence and instability over commitment of our military will be virtually inevitable. and as a result, our national security will be undermined.
it is clear that the administration planned a war against libya at least a month in advance. but why? the president cannot say that libya is an imminent or actual threat to our nation. he cannot say that war against libya is in our vital interest. he cannot say that libya had the intention or capability of attacking the united states of america. he has not claimed that libya had a weapons of mass destruction. to be used against us. we are told that our nation's
role is limited. yet at the same time it is being expanded. we have been told that the administration does not favor military regime change, but then they tell us the war cannot end until gaddafi is no longer the leader. further, two weeks earlier the president signed a secret order for the c.i.a. to assist the rebels who are trying to out of gaddafi. -- to oust gaddafi. we are told that the burdens of war in libya would be shared by a coalition, but the united
states is providing the bulk of the money, the armaments, and the organizational leadership. we know that the war has already crossed our nation -- cost our nation upwards of $600 million and we are told that the long-term expenses could go much , much further. we are looking at spending additional billions of dollars in libya at a time when we can't even take care of our people here at home. we are told that the president has legal authority for this war under united nations security council resolution 1973.
but this resolution specifically does not authorize any ground elements. furthermore, the administration exceeded the mandate of the resolution by providing the rebels with air cover, thus the war against libya violated our constitution and has even violated the very authority which the administration claimed was sufficient to take our country to war. we are told that the gaddafi regime has been illegitimate for four decades, but we are not told that in 2003 the u.s. told that in 2003 the u.s. dropped sanctions against libya